https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature Q This is how your world could end In an extract from his book Ends of the World, Peter Brannen examines mass extinction events and the catastrophic outcome of rising temperatures for all the world’s population Peter Brannen Sun 10 Sep ‘17 https://www.theguardian.com/environ...world-could-end-climate-change-global-warming Today, the most common maximums for wet-bulb temperatures around the world are 26C to 27C. Wet-bulb temperatures of 35C or higher are lethal to humanity. Above this limit, it is impossible for humans to dissipate the heat they generate indefinitely and they die of overheating in a matter of hours, no matter how hard they try to cool off. ... Already in today’s world, heated less than 1C above preindustrial times, heatwaves have assumed a new deadly demeanour. In 2003, two hot weeks killed 30,000 people in Europe. It was called a once-in-500-year event. It happened again three years later (497 years ahead of schedule). In 2010, a heatwave killed 15,000 people in Russia. In 2015, nearly 700 people died in Karachi alone from a heatwave that struck Pakistan while many were fasting for Ramadan. But these tragic episodes are barely a shade of what’s projected. UQ
I can certainly agree with that. I'd go as far as to say - robust... has nothing to do with any of your statements. Thing is, you need to deal with the real issue which is that according to the fundamental basic principles of physical chemistry, the relationship between (man made) CO2 and warming is scientifically established. On the other hand, there is no comparable or supportable science to confirm any other natural events can be responsible for the amount of warming being directly measured. Nor that any other natural events will play out to mitigate the effects of that (man made)CO2 warming, before it fucks everything up.
Yes, and many experts who didn't believe curvature of spacetime causes Gravity, or natural selection causes Evolution. Many.
Problem is, he has said things on similar lines previously and his research was found to be seriously flawed. All he seems to be doing here is providing an extra category for amplification. But fundamentally his basic proposition still doesn't overcome its initial flaws. It is not what he says, it is what the actual science says. To date what he says has not been able to stand up scientifically. Thing is you have to ask yourself, why are you accepting these claims, words and only assumptions from one scientist because it fits with anti- man made CO2 warming, when science itself leaves no other realistic outcome other than man made CO2 is causing the high level of warming.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajan-thapaliya/politics-without-principl_b_9926614.html Q These things will destroy the human race: politics without principle, progress without compassion, wealth without work, learning without silence, religion without fearlessness and worship without awareness. - Anthony de Mello A man can never be good of anything unless he gives us all the selfishness and begins to think about serving the God that sent him and the humanity. We must purify ourselves from the bottom of our heart before we begin exercising our power. Otherwise, it will destroy ourselves and hurt others. UQ
System engineers use project management tools like control charts (PERT or else) to plan and control cost/budget/time-schedule/quality/reliability/constrains/solutions/consequences/life-cycle analysis/feasibility-studies/Contingency plans!!!/etc. that many times are not the major concerns to scientists. Most often scientists enjoy investigations/findings/arguments/publishing/papers/breakthroughs/collecting data and more data for validation or for challenging others/ etc. Never-ending enjoyment plus more expenses! Just unsure whether the earth has much time to hear further more arguments from both sides of scientists who prefer freedoms and would not be obliged to invite practical constraints to be implemented by systems engineers. Lack of leadership perhaps may be getting to become the most important factor rather than any CO2/Greenhouse-gases by now!?
It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions We have to bury gigatons of carbon to slow climate change. We’re not even close to ready. By David Roberts@drvox Aug 18, 2017 https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/18/16166014/negative-emissions "You see, in order to have a reasonable chance of hitting the 2C target, modeling shows that humanity must go carbon negative in the mid- to late 21st century. Here are two scenarios developed by Oil Change International, one that offers a 66 percent chance of hitting 2 degrees, one that shows a 50 percent chance of hitting 1.5 degrees: "
the only relationship between co2 (not even man made co2) and warming is that co2 trails the warming up and trails the cooling down. this has been established by multiple peer reviewed studies... over and over. fundamental science shows the earth has been warming and cooling in cycles for millions of years and there is no science which says we are warming outside of those natural cycles. That is fundamental science. That science also shows that the oceans are warming. And peer reviewed science is showing us that atmospheric co2 levels are following that ocean warming. That is the fundamental science and peer reviewed. There is no peer reviewed science man made co2 is causing warming. Some agw nutters speculate co2 ampliefies the warming. But that is just a guess it is absolutely not fundamental science because the earth has a large complex climate with negative feedbacks. That is the state of science today.
False. You still need to address the real issue. The fundamental basic principles of physical chemistry show that (man made) CO2 will warm the Earth. (man made) CO2 must cause warming according to those basic principles of physical chemistry. Where there isn't any peer reviewed science is in the bizarre assumption that any amount of (man made) CO2 will not adversely effect the planet to the detriment of human and all other species..... and has been for a very long time and nothing you refer to is any where near likely to overthrow the fact.
the only relationship between co2 (not even man made co2) and warming is that co2 trails the warming up and trails the cooling down. lie And peer reviewed science is showing us that atmospheric co2 levels are following that ocean warming. lie Some agw nutters speculate co2 ampliefies the warming. But that is just a guess it is absolutely not fundamental science lie you are a liar